The court was asked whether notice had in substance been properly given by an insured so as to allow a claim to be made under an insurance policy. The County Court judge held that there had been a breach of condition and that the insurers were therefore entitled to decline liability.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The insurers had all relevant information from another source, so notice was irrelevant. The notification condition had been inserted in the policy so as to afford a protection to the insurers so they should know in good time about the accident and any proceedings consequent on it. If they obtain all the material knowledge from another source so that they are not prejudiced at all by the failure of the insured himself to tell him, then they cannot rely on the condition to defeat the claim.
Lord Denning MR said: ”Seeing that they had received the information from the police, it would be a futile thing to require the motor-cyclist himself to give them the self-same information. The law never compels a person to do that which is useless and unnecessary.’
Salmon LJ held that in principle the insurers were entitled to avoid liability on the grounds of the insured’s failure to send them the notice of intended prosecution and summons, but agreed that in the circumstances of the case they had waived their right to do so.
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Salmon, Dankwerts LJ
Citations:
[1966] 1 WLR 1334
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shinedean Ltd v Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd and Another CA 20-Jun-2006
The second defendant insurers appealed a finding of liability, saying that the insured had failed to provide its documents within a reasonable time in order to meet a condition to that effect in its terms. The documents had not been provided for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244493